On Thursday we discussed the supposed structure of a 19th century Utopia credited to a German individual whose name I don't remember (sorry, Ben). It involved the different spheres of what I'll collectively call "life" existing separately--science, politics, religion, art, what have you. When the spheres overlap or bleed into each other, that is called a "corruption." It is these corruptions that disrupt the Utopia.
In a class built on examining these intersections and overstepped boundaries, it's easy for us to agree that what makes life at all interesting is these corruptions. Science and culture (media and politics, school and religion, Thing 1 and Thing 2) go hand in hand. Purism will only lead to the death of the medium.
While the blending of science and ideology/money/etc. is the reason something called "science studies" can exist, the complications are often as frustrating as they are fascinating. No study can reach the public without layers of "non-science" resting above or below it, and in the end the corruptions seem to keep us from the truth (whatever the truth is). Whether Crichton is telling us that ideology funds research and alters the published findings or Pollan is explaining that friendly government support of corn farmers is actually destroying America's health, it's pretty clear that the facts are hard to get to.
I thought, originally, that the art sphere might be the only one that has doesn't do much to disguise the truth (or "truth"). If art imitates life, its existence is dependent on collision with the other spheres. No matter what statement it's making, no matter how the public receives it, in the end art is only art and always up for interpretation. Fiction is not equal to fact. After learning about the effect State of Fear had on powerful decision-makers (/Deciders) and revisiting how storytelling has reshaped ethics and policy in the past, however, I rethought this. We all might be hardened skeptics, rearing to point out sensationalism or fat cats when we see 'em, but a carefully constructed story--even one that uses sensationalism to critique sensationalism--can catch anyone off-guard. Instead of being the least known or most innocent part of the equation, I believe that art and its emotional power might be the most dangerous part. It is not sitting back and taking in religion and war and science--it is pushing outward and, through mixed media especially, passing admirably for truth.
As scary as State of Fear's power is, I think the sneaky, oft-underestimated power of art is awesome.
yeah!
ReplyDelete